Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyEurope PMCOpen access

Radiofrequency-Assisted Liposuction Compared with Aggressive Superficial, Subdermal Liposuction of the Arms: A Bilateral Quantitative Comparison

Chia CT., Theodorou SJ., Hoyos AE., Pitman GH.

Prospective Study on Face & Skin, published in Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2015) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Prospective Study
Journal
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open (2015)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
26301148
PMCID
PMC4527633
DOI
10.1097/gox.0000000000000429
Citations
46

Abstract (original English)

Background Liposuction of the arms alone may be inadequate for aesthetic improvement because of skin laxity. Radiofrequency-assisted liposuction (RFAL) and aggressive superficial liposuction (SupL) have been described to stimulate soft tissue retraction to improve results. We compare the techniques and describe a classification scheme that factors skin laxity, skin quality, and Fitzpatrick type to provide treatment recommendations. Methods Ten consecutive female patients underwent RFAL of 1 arm and SupL on the contralateral arm. All patients had Fitzpatrick skin types of III, IV, or V with an average body mass index of 26.0. Using fluorescent tattooing, key points on the arm skin were measured preoperatively and postoperatively to indicate changes in surface area. Results There were no complications in the group, and all patients reported satisfaction with the aesthetic results. All patients showed reduction of measured skin surface areas and skin distances postoperatively. At 1 year, the measured surface area reductions on the anterior arms averaged 15.0% for RFAL and 10.9% for SupL on the anterior arm skin. Posteriorly, RFAL showed 13.1% reduction and SupL 8.1% reduction in the surface areas at 1 year. Linear reduction for RFAL averaged 22.6% and 17.8% for SupL 1 year postoperatively anteriorly. Conclusion Both RFAL and SupL of the arms showed quantifiable and sustained reduc

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research